CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA

"Your ancestors are not apes," *Charles Darwin wrote in his book. Research
scientists tell us that no evidence of a nonhuman ancestry of man has been
found. Here are scientific facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. Do not let
evolutionists deny you your birthright. You were created by God; you did not
come from a flock of monkeys. God created everything; the evidence clearly
points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science
vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by
Creation Science Facts.

This material is excerpted from the book,
ANCIENT MAN. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates
that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations
in the books this Encyclopedia
is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following
statements by scientists if you will also read the web page,
Ancient Man.

"One might ask why the new-Darwinian paradigm does not awaken or disappear if
it is at odds with critical factual information."—*C. Schwabe, "On the
Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has
not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been
positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the
function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question
I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about
evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution
does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American
Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

" `What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith upon
belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be
produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is
faith unjustified by works."—*Arther N. Field.

"The search of the proverbial `missing link' in man's evolution, that holy
grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and
myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more."—*Sir
Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of
Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11 (2), pp. 87-114.

"Many of the so-called `primitive' peoples of the world today, most of the
participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that
certain hunting tribes in Africa, central India, South America, and the western
Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but
highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much
simpler, less developed life."—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely
related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British
publication, Nature,
suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals
had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Home sapiens was, on
the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man."—*Theodosius
Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

"Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 cc; Neanderthal's is 1600 cc. If his
brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man's."—Michael Pitman, Adam and
Evolution (1984), p. 87.

"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly
personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated
collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a
start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are
repudiations to be made and public acclaim to be savored for people who unearth
even older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the
pitifully small number of hominoid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their
imaginative talents."—*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in
New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

"Careful examination of the Piltdown Man bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the
startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated
by Dawson, probably to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of
pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap and ape lower
jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the
simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that
the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers
obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized
bone."—Herold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

"Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the
structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the
transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a
juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the
first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart,
the Tuang `child,' was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should
never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans."—Duane Gish,
Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any
early Homo [habilis]."—*W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and
(Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

"The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its
outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable
closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to
modern man."—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, were leaders in the development
of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique
simultaneously performs millions of comparison on hundreds of corresponding
dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines.
Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and
living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical
visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet
been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as
`Lucy.' "—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis
sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of [bones from] two separate species. The most
convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow
joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24
(1984).

"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a
variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on
occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The `evidence' for the alleged
transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news
note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . .
[It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an
orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470,"
National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will
reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning
man's origins."—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

"By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his original
theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of the human lineages
were premature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218.

"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western
hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass
spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon
years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested
and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will
occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."—Walter T. Brown, In
the Beginning (1989), p. 95.